search_conversations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a custom search syntax but fails to explain what that entails, whether pagination or cursors are used, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and a custom search syntax. It front-loads the purpose but omits all operational details, making it more an under-specification than a well-structured description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is far too incomplete. The presence of an output schema does not compensate because the agent cannot even construct a valid query without knowing the search syntax and parameter meanings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The meaning of 'q', 'limit', 'status', 'label_id', 'mailbox_id', etc. is entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess or fail. This is a critical deficiency.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'search' and the resource 'conversations', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conversations. However, it relies on 'Jelly's search syntax' without elaboration, which weakens clarity for agents unfamiliar with that specific syntax.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use search versus list or get conversations. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.